21 May, 2012

The trouble with starting with equations as the only reliable basis for theoretical speculations, is that you only “see” what fits your forms. There is no concrete Reality as final arbiter – whatever is thereafter seen has to be fitted into the universally agreed “essences” – the equations that we have extracted previously.

Now this means that the only things that can be admitted into any “view of the World” absolutely must conform to these “essential and final” equations.

Of course, being Pure Form, such have been manipulated in all sorts of “legitimate” ways for what now amounts to generations of physicists. The equations can, and indeed have, been pushed (literally without limit) into all sorts of odd corners, and still be regarded as entirely sound [Note: Mathematical Chaos proves that].

So, the saga unfolded in the article by Michael Brooks and Richard Webb entitled All or Nothing [New Scientist 2864] can, and indeed must, occur!

To “explain” some new discovery, the existing deck of cards must be shuffled and shuffled again, and then pushed to the limits in accordance with meta-forms (forms of forms) like Supersymmetry to accommodate the “new”! The very same suit must be re-tailored to fit absolutely all occurrences.

So, this is what is behind this scarcely credible tract! Almost everything “might” be explained by a new particle, which seems to include both Matter and Antimatter as a single unified entity! In a veritable burst of chalk dust, many worried theorists try anything on their blackboards to solve the problem.

Yet, if they were real theoretical physicists instead of mathematicians, the model they require would be staring them in the face, but these equation manipulators can’t possibly see it.

The physical model that is required is the atom - and the components that make up the new entity would be one positron (antimatter) and one electron (matter) – mutually orbiting one another.

Indeed, such a particle has already been seen and named the positronium. But, that having been discovered in a High Energy Accelerator, was shown to be highly unstable with a minute lifespan, and hence dismissed for most of the suggested roles for the new entity. BUT, again using the atom as a valid model, the involved orbits in the positronium could there have been greatly elevated and very close to the limit of stability of that entity. The tiniest additional energy could be sufficient to totally dissociate it into its components – one electron and one positron – a veritable Pair Production indeed! So, if we bring down the contained energy considerably we might well be considering – a photon.

And, if we continued until we reached the minimum energy consistent with the continued existence of the entity at the other extreme, we could have an Empty Photon. And such could well be entirely stable in that state. Indeed such a particle (named by this author as the neutritron) could be everywhere – indeed the most numerous and most undetectable particle of all.

1. Reality-as-is – totally unconstrained and developing of its own volition

2. Pluralistically Constrained Reality – still a part of Reality but locally isolated into rigidly constrained Domains to reveal, and allow extraction of, so displayed relations

3. Purely Formal versions of these – clearly removed into Ideality – the mathematical World of Pure Form alone

All of these come out of a series of considerations and interventionist processes of what we can scientifically obtain from the World, and which contribute to our developing conceptions of” Reality”.

What is exciting about all these versions is that there are two things that thankfully seem to be present in all of them. First, there is what I have called Objective Content, which is present even if the models we derive or construct are not by any means a full and correct explanation. And there are also Resonances, which though they occur in the different forms and for different reasons in each, do, in fact, relate strongly to others in the alternative (and clearly parallel) versions.

Of course, as well as these helping our struggle to continually improve the truth of our understanding and explanations, they also can, and often do, mislead us into interpreting them as being the same in each manifestation, and that is certainly not true!

The small collection of papers gathered together in this issue attempt to reveal these various versions of Reality and how they distort our developing grasp upon “what the World truly is”.

"Now, apart from commercial and political motives being crucial in the failure of the Co-operative Movement, that was due not only to moral guidelines, which put such organisations at a decided disadvantage compared with their amoral capitalist opponents. There was also a timidity and conservative mentality too in those who led such institutions, and decided upon its plans and purposes. In a capitalist world there was no broad spectrum of sympathetic sources for the recruitment of available managers, and, as with all seemingly “socialist ventures”, they are soon dominated by incoming employees from the middle classes, who will always be looking upwards with ambition, rather than looking downwards with service in mind..."

09 May, 2012

(We are more easily led part by part to an understanding of the whole!)

Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas: Virgil

(Happy is the one who can learn the causes of things)

When arguing the pros and cons of certain assumptions or principles in Science, it may seem to the uninitiated that the philosophers are avidly contemplating their own navels, rather than addressing the really important issues of understanding the World.

But, the inevitable consequences of error in things that constitute the very bases of Science refute that very dramatically!

Let us take the universally accepted idea of Plurality – wherein analysis is considered not only possible in understanding any particular Whole, but indeed absolutely essential! The basis for this is the belief that every Whole is composed of a finite number of separable Parts, which, if isolated perfectly one-by-one will display, in turn, all relevant properties that can be involved in whatever that Part contributes towards the consequent Whole.

What emerges from subscription to that principle are legion and can be very misleading indeed.

When considering Socialism as an alternative to Capitalism, we must NOT limit ourselves solely to the usual primary political and economic areas. Indeed, at the very heart of these two systems are also entirely different implicit social contracts as to appropriate objectives in personal behaviour between the citizen and the State, or Community at large.

The crucial opposing factor in informing the general populace of "the truth" has always been the ownership and control of the means of dissemination by a very limited class with very different interests and motives than the bulk of the population in any given country. And this means that it would be universally extremely unlikely to be allowed access via any form of Mass Media (to socialists in a capitalist society for example). And, in the same way the bureaucracies in the so-called 'socialist countries' such as the Soviet Union and China, were in a similar position, and thus determined exactly what was allowed to be delivered to their populations at large.

Yet, though these two supposedly different political systems led to a similar degree of crucial misinformation, it is not necessarily true that the problem cannot be overcome - at least for now! For the answer to the problem is surely the internet.

With minimal resources and a modicum of computer skills, a colleague and I have established several successful websites, and one of them made a worldwide impact. With our Dance-Interactive site, my small team and a professional dance colleague, over a period of some six years, managed to build a global database of some 3,800 genuinely interested contacts, and got our products in users hands in 80 different countries. And, crucially, in spite of the almost universal opposition of the dance education establishment, we did indeed outflank them via a policy of free demo discs offered on the site (in return for their contact details) while, of course, providing them with what they needed, and indeed wanted, to empower their work - interactive video resources for the teaching of dance.

Currently, another of our websites, the SHAPE journal, has been augmented by the blog you are currently reading, and the inclusion of videos and animations on Youtube - and our current total visits are approaching 35,000 in a relatively short period.

The point that I believe has been demonstrated, is that the Internet can empower financially poor individuals and fledgling organisations to establish the means to communicate, without being totally controlled by "those in charge".

The socialist organisations must therefore totally back those who fight for online freedom and the exposure of damning 'leaks' from secret areas to inform the public. They may be liberals and not share our political objectives, but they are addressing the area that makes so-called Democracy so clearly a total fraud, when in the sole hands of the privileged classes.

The Arab Spring proved it. Social networking on the web allowed those protesters to not only organise their forces, but also react quickly to counter actions by the forces of repression, and to flexibly deploy their forces in a way that the police and paramilitary forces could not subdue. And, an almost entirely non-violent uprising was still able to be effective. In spite of their liberal tactics they still managed to topple the dictators one after the other.

Needless to say, the leaders of the capitalist powers quickly intervened to ensure both influence (and oil?) from the seemingly non-socialist revolutionaries. But, even that clever move may prove entirely insufficient. In spite of many calls for the Rule of Law in Libya, and for the disarming of the revolutionary fighters, the latter have continued to keep their arms and be ready if required to use them again.

Though some nations have tried it, it has proved difficult to gag the web, and those who know exactly how to use their newfound communications, are already using them to ask new questions of each other.

So, with this relatively cheap and instant media, with all the power to change the world, the question for the socialist groups must be, "What must be published?" For even the dedicated socialist organisations tend to still be doing what they have for decades. The activists of the Arab Spring rushed past them as if they were rooted to the spot! That must change.

A detailed search through what currently exists on the internet, looks more like the old established "socialist news from across the world" - indeed, the reassuring message - "Look! There are others like us across the World!"

But that is nowhere near enough.

Not only must there be a substantial dissemination of Left news, but the far more important regular dissemination of empowering Theory , and by this I do not just mean quotes from the original theorists of the 19th and 20th centuries, but crucially fresh and appropriate Marxist theory being developed NOW. Not just agitational materials, but profound contributions upon all areas of human endeavour, achieved on the basis of the most powerful philosophy and method ever created by mankind.

There needs to be a constant flow of required developments in Marxist theory on literally everything. Fitting up the contributions of the original masters to modern scenarios, just isn't good enough. There are revolutions to be won.

What is currently available upon this powerful media is far from sufficient, and doesn't seem to appreciate what a weapon the internet could really be.

About Me

I am a retired lecturer and full-time writer. As the truth of Science has been my major concern throughout my life, I cannot conceive of teaching it in an uncritical, passive way. It's truth or error is THE question, and its improvement must be my main purpose. Teaching for me is Philosophy, and that means taking a stand on all sorts of issues, not sitting on the fence!